Objective To explore the impact of the severity of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) on the quality of life in patients with rectal cancer. Methods Literatures published from January 2012 to August 2020 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, WanFang and other databases were searched according to the search terms. Study screened, data extracted, and quality evaluated were conducted by three reviewers independently, and the RevMan 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven studies, involving 1 616 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that the functional scores (including overall health status, physiological functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, and social functioning) of patients with major LARS were lower than those of patients with no/minor LARS (P<0.001). Except for appetite loss, the symptom score (including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain), shortness of breath, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties of patients with major LARS were higher than those of patients with no/minor LARS (P<0.01). Conclusion Major LARS has a greater impact on the quality of life of patients after surgery than no/minor LARS.
At present, there has been no report in China that novel coronavirus specific immune globulin has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we had successfully treated one COVID-19 patient with intravenous injection of human immunoglobulin (COVID-19-IVIG). The female patient, aged 57 years, had clinical diagnosis: (1) COVID-19, common type; (2) postoperative colon cancer; (3) leukopenia; (4) low cellular immunity. 75 mL COVID-19 human immunoglobulin (Sinoptic Wuhan Blood Products Co., Ltd.) was intravenously injected twice. The patient was hospitalized for 49 days and had a good prognosis.
Chinese medicine case report, a special method, records the experience of practitioners and guides students to inherit and develop Chinese medicine. It can transfer a large amount of medical and humanistic information and contribute to the development of Chinese medicine. It is a literary style that has been widely accepted and helps to document and disseminate the culture of Chinese medicine. With the advent of big data and information, more Chinese medicine case reports have been published. However, many have insufficient quality to properly guide and apply in the clinical practice, which might be caused by little guidance of Chinese medicine case report standards published. This paper summarized the case report standards, synthesized and appraised the feasibility and problems specific for improving the quality of Chinese medicine case reports, and proposed suggestions and guidance for developing the standardization of Chinese medicine medical case reports.
ObjectivesTo explore the characteristics of the international clinical studies using objective performance criteria (OPC) and provide a reference to design clinical trials and determine external controls.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were searched for all clinical studies which used OPC. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and descriptive analysis was then performed.ResultsA total of 51 English language articles were included. Merely one was published in 2001, and others were published between 2010 and 2018. Twenty-seven articles (27/51, 52.9%) were published between 2017 and 2018, with accumulated impact factors of 411. In the article referring to the reasons for using the objective performance criteria, reasons for using OPC study was primarily the difficulties of randomization and comparison (8/11, 72.7%). Articles with cardiovascular disease and peripheral vascular disease accounted for 86%, and articles on the effectiveness or safety of medical devices accounted for 76.5%. Single-arm trial (40), randomized controlled trials (2), case-control studies (2), case series (5) and diagnostic tests (2) were included. OPCs were mostly derived from the data of clinical trials of other similar products, national standards, specialist association standard and meta-analysis of multiple clinical studies. A total of 27 articles (27/51, 52.9%) used hypothesis testing to compare research results with objective performance goal, and 24 articles (24/51, 47.1%) used the confidence interval method.ConclusionsOPC studies are primarily used for safety intervention and effect evaluation. OPC studies are developing very rapidly, especially in the field of cardiovascular studies. Methodological details are reported reasonably sufficient. Reasons for using OPC study are primarily the difficulties of randomization and comparison. Factors such as source of the OPC, sample size, and comparison method should be taken into account. The application of the OPC can not only solve the difficulties of the implementation of numerous clinical research, but also provide new insights for solving the practical difficulties of clinical research in the real-world.